Translation of the speech made by Richard Edmonds on the 25. November 2017 at the commemoration held to remember the suffering of the German prisoners-of-war at the site of the Feld des Jammers (Field of extreme distress), Bretzenheim, near Bad Kreuznach, Germany. Note here that the Canadian historian, James Bacque, in his book, Other Losses describes the hardship suffered at this location, the Rheinwiesen prisoner of war camp, where hundreds of thousands of German prisoners of the US Army were corralled for months on end in the exposed open-air, and without any proper sanitary arrangements in place and fed on bare starvation rations.

Dear German friends, my name is Richard Edmonds and I am British. I would like to say here that it was the British Establishment which twice both in 1914 and then just twenty five years later in 1939 declared War against Germany, and without any good reason whatsoever.

We all know that the two World Wars were the most destructive wars that history has ever witnessed. The British Establishment’s declarations of war led to, in effect, the whole world attacking Germany. It is astounding that one nation could withstand for a total of ten years against such a combined massive force. As the French patriot and founder of the Front National, Jean-Marie Le Pen said, the Germans are the martyr-folk of Europe.

Ladies and Gentlemen, the Second World War did not end on May 1945. Neither at the Rheinwiesen POW camp nor anywhere else in post-War Germany was there an end to the suffering. The War continued: in the place of bombs and bullets there now came all the crimes and injustices that men are capable of.

Here I would like to quote the German Professor of the University of Munich, Dr. Franz Seidler, from his book, Das Recht in Siegerhand (Victors’ Justice):

“It has taken more than a half century for it to become permissible to condemn the Western Allies (Britain and the USA) for the crimes that they committed in the Second World War against the rules of war and against the treatment of civilians during and after that war. The Western Allies bombed German residential areas with the cold blooded purpose of attempting to break the moral of the population and the Western Allies cared nothing for the five hundred thousand victims who lost their lives. The Western Allies shot thousands of German POWs. After the capitulation of the German armed forces the Western Allies denied German POWs their rights as prisoners of war as guaranteed by international conventions, and left them to rot in open fields (as at the Rheinwiesen camp). The German POWs were employed illegally by the Allies as slave-labour. The Western Allies approved and supported the greatest act of genocide ever committed in Europe when 15 million Germans were expelled from their ancestral home-lands. The Western Allies ruthlessly looted German industries and stole German technical know-how. They did nothing as hundreds of thousand of Germans, denied adequate rations and heating, succumbed to hunger and cold. The Western Allies imprisoned three million Germans in camps. All this after the War was over.” Quote ends.

Dr. Seidler speaks here of the violations committed during the Second World War by the Western Allies against the Rules Of war and Conventions on Human Rights. Amongst the many other subjects in his book, Dr. Seidler deals with the Nuremberg Tribunal and condemns both morally and from a judicial stand-point the trial which the triumphant Allies (the USA, the Soviet Union, Great Britain and France) had organized at the end the War against the militarily defeated German leaders. Question who were the judges and prosecutors at this trial of the defeated Germans ? Answer: the British were the judges: the British who had mercilessly bombed Hamburg, Dresden and Berlin; the Americans were the judges: the Americans who destroyed the Japanese cities of Hiroshima and Nagasaki with atom-bombs at the very end of the War; the judges were Soviet Russians, and everybody knows of the crimes committed by the Soviet Russians (including the rape of two million German girls and women at the War’s end). I quote again Dr. Seidler: “The Allies’ Nuremberg trial of the defeated German leaders was a crime itself and a violation of all the rules of law of the civilised world.

But it was not only the German professor, Dr. Seidler, alone who more than half a century later condemned the the Nuremberg Tribunal of the former Allies. No, already at the very time that the trials were taking place in 1945-46, leading Americans publicly condemned the trials. For example, the top number one judge of the USA, the Chief Justice of the US Supreme Court, Harlan F, Stone, condemned the Allies’ trial as “Lynch-justice”, and leading US politician, US Senator Robert Taft, condemned that trial as a “perversion of Justice, and that America’s participation constituted a blot on the honour of the USA”; Taft went further, he predicted that in years to come, Europeans would condemn the USA for its participation. So spoke US Senator Robert Taft in 1945.

Question: Why did leading American contemporaries speak so sharply against the trial organised by the Allies in terms of “Lynch-justice and perversion of Justice” ? Answer: because at the very time of the trials rumours became too loud to be ignored that Germans held in captivity by the Americans were being tortured by American interrogators for the purpose of “softening” them up in order that they be compliant witnesses for the prosecution. To cut a long story short, the American judge, Edward van Roden, was send from the USA to investigate officially the conditions of Germans held in American captivity. Judge van Roden discovered that under interrogation, 137 Germans had had their testicles crushed beyond repair. On his return to the USA, Judge van Roden held a number of press-conferences where he revealed what he had seen and learnt.

But amongst the Western Allies it was not only the Americans who tortured defenceless Germans. The British authorities also tortured German prisoners, who it was intended should serve the Allies’ interests as defendants or witnesses in the trials that were being prepared. In 2002 the journalist, Fritjof Meyer, an editor of the (left-liberal) German weekly news-magazine, der SPIEGEL, published an article in the German government publication, OSTEUROPA, which dealt with the case of the former Auschwitz camp commandant, Rudolf Hoess. The SPIEGEL journalist described exactly how Hoess had been captured after the War by the British occupation authorities and how these had tortured Hoess almost to the point of death in order to extract from the former Auschwitz camp commandant the “confession” that he, Rudolf Hoess had murdered four million at Auschwitz,.

It is clear that the SPIEGEL journalist does not believe a word of the confession extracted from the former Auschwitz commandant. The SPIEGEL journalist, Fritjof Meyer entitled his article published in the May 2002 edition of OSTEUROPA, “The number of victims of Auschwitz”, and wrote – and I quote his words – “Four Million victims in Auschwitz – a product of the war-propaganda of the Allies” The SPIEGEL journalist went further and quoted in his article, a statement made by the Polish expert, Waclaw Dlugoborski. Dlugoborski had been the Director of Research at the (Communist) Polish government memorial centre at Auschwitz. Dlugoborski had written in the (left-liberal) German Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung in September 1998, and I quote:

“Shortly before the end of the War a Soviet Commission of Enquiry determined, without any further research into the matter, that the number of victims of Auschwitz was four million,” Dlugoborski continued, “although from the beginning there were doubts as to the accuracy of this estimation, the estimation became dogma. Up to the year 1989 (the year of the collapse of the Communist bloc in Eastern Europe) it was forbidden to question the number of four million murdered at Auschwitz; staff at the Auschwitz memorial centre were threatened with disciplinary procedures if they did so.” Although from the very beginning there were doubts as to the accuracy of the estimation.

The SPIEGEL journalist Meyer concluded with: “In February 1946 the Soviet prosecutor at the Nuremberg Tribunal, Major Leo Smirnov, claimed that four million been murdered at Auschwitz.” A product of war-propaganda.

Friends, it is clear that by all standards of decency, the governments of the former war-time Allies, the British government, the American government and the Russian government should officially apologize to the German people for the crimes committed by their predecessors.

This is partly the old story of ego overtaking party commitment. Mrs Petry rapidly became the best known public face of AfD after ousting the party’s founder Bernd Lucke in July 2015, and she might have started to believe she was bigger than the party.

Commentators also need to be more careful in referring to ‘moderate’ and ‘hardline’ factions in AfD. Mrs Petry herself was considered an ‘extremist’ when her faction took over the party two years ago. Most of AfD’s founders had been interested mainly in reforming the EU, and were a very moderate version of UKIP. Mrs Petry and her allies were unafraid of using hardline anti-immigration rhetoric.

This paid off as German voters revolted against conservative Chancellor Angela Merkel’s open door policy on ‘asylum seekers’. At one stage AfD was polling close to 20% and began winning seats in regional parliaments (Landtag) across Germany.

AfD’s candidate for Chancellor, 72-year-old former CDU official Alexander Gauland (right) was unimpressed by Mrs Petry’s behaviour this morning

However Mrs Petry – while happy to use extreme language about immigration and especially about Islam – was very nervous about offending Germany’s small but noisy Jewish population, and wanted to avoid challenging taboo subjects connected to her country’s 20th century history.

Notably she refused to back the leader of anti-Islam group Pegida when he proposed that circumcision of children should be banned until they reach 18 and can decide for themselves. AfD’s draft manifesto in 2016 supported this policy, but Mrs Petry and her allies blocked it, realising that the policy would be seen as anti-Jewish as well as anti-Muslim.

Thuringia Landtag member Bjorn Höcke (centre), one of AfD’s most prominent spokesmen, seen here with Alexander Gauland and Frauke Petry, who later tried to have Höcke expelled from the party

By this time Mrs Petry was engaged in an internal battle within the party to enforce a policy of genuflecting to the national religion of ‘Holocaustianity’. She tried to get one party official, Bjorn Höcke, expelled from AfD – not for ‘Holocaust denial’, but for a speech in which he called the Berlin Holocaust memorial a “monument of shame”, and an interview in which he told the Wall Street Journal: “The big problem is that one presents Hitler as absolutely evil. But of course we know that there is no black and no white in history.”

AfD’s leading candidates at the Bundestag election – Alexander Gauland and Alice Weidel – celebrating their record high vote last night

At this morning’s press conference Mrs Petry did not expand on her reasons for quitting the party. She seems to have the backing of a small faction in the north-eastern state of Mecklenburg-Vorpommern, where four fellow MPs elected yesterday as AfD candidates say they will also now sit as independents.

However the vast majority of the party is likely to view this morning’s outburst as petty and divisive, motivated by personal spite and vanity. Mrs Petry has almost certainly consigned herself to political oblivion. In particular it is difficult for her to sustain the argument that her line is the only “pragmatic” one, after AfD has just secured the best election result it could reasonably have hoped for.

AfD achieved 5.9 million votes (12.6%) and will have 94 seats in the new Bundestag. This is up from 2 million votes (4.7%) at the last general election in 2013, when the party fell just below the 5% threshold so had no seats. AfD’s results were especially outstanding in parts of the former East Germany – becoming the largest party in the region of Saxony (which includes the cities of Leipzig, Dresden and Chemnitz). AfD polled almost 670,000 votes (27.0%) in Saxony, ahead of Merkel’s CDU on 26.9%.

The best NPD constituency result was 2.0% in a Mecklenburg-Vorpommern district close to the Polish border in the far north-east; the party also managed 1.9% in several constituencies in Thuringia and Saxony. NPD polled 1.1% (28,434 votes) in Saxony as a whole, and 1.2% in Thuringia.

German general elections are a combination of Westminster-style constituencies (where an MP is elected first-past-the-post) and a proportional list-based system. Voters choose both an MP for their locality, and express a preference for a party. After each directly elected MP has been chosen, the rest of the Bundestag is drawn from various party lists so that its final composition matches the proportion of votes for each party (with a threshold of 5% of the national vote, below which a party gets no MPs at all).

Frauke Petry, co-leader of Alternative for Germany, has won her constituency in Saxony and will be one of a projected 88 AfD MPs.

AfD’s co-leader Frauke Petry has won her constituency in Saxony, top of the poll with 37.4% and gaining the district from Chancellor Angela Merkel’s ruling CDU. Two of Mrs Petry’s AfD colleagues in neighbouring Saxony districts were also directly elected – and at 2 a.m. German time came the sensational news that AfD is now the largest party in Saxony as a whole with almost 670,000 votes (27.0%) in this region of former East Germany! At a press conference the morning after this stunning result, Frauke Petry unfortunately distracted from the party’s success by announcing that she would not sit with AfD in the Bundestag. She then walked out of the press conference leaving party colleagues surprised and embarrassed. The party will hope not to be blighted by further displays of political immaturity.

AfD’s 12.6% vote was a significant improvement on polls at the start of the campaign that had put the party below 10%. This will make AfD the third largest party in the Bundestag: they are now projected to have 88 MPs but the precise total will depend detailed calculations not yet complete, due to the electoral system. Conservative Chancellor Merkel and her ex-coalition partners, the social-democratic SPD, have each polled lower than expected. Merkel will now struggle to form a viable coalition government, and will have to enter talks with both the liberal FDP and the Greens.

Exit poll shows that AfD is now the most popular party among male voters in the former East Germany

Merkel’s CDU/CSU polled 33.0%, down 9% from the previous election in 2013. The SPD was second on 20.5%, down 5.2% and a record postwar low, despite having enjoyed a brief boost in the polls earlier this year. AfD were third with 12.6%, up 7.9%. The liberal FDP (on various occasions postwar coalition partners with either CDU/CSU or SPD) will be back in the Bundestag with 10.7% (up 5.9%) after losing all their MPs in 2013. The Left Party (ex-communists and left-wing former SPD members) managed 9.2% (up 0.6%) and the Greens are similarly almost unchanged from last time with 8.9% (up 0.5%).

Chancellor Angela Merkel’s pro-immigration policies have cost her party millions of votes

A few days ago in one of his final campaign speeches, AfD’s lead candidate Alexander Gauland said that Germans had the right to be proud of their soldiers’ record in the two 20th century world wars:

“If the French are rightly proud of their emperor and the Britons of Nelson and Churchill, we have the right to be proud of the achievements of the German soldiers in two world wars.”

Many journalists worldwide have been writing that AfD will be the first “far right” party to gain seats in the postwar German Bundestag. However the Guardian’s Berlin correspondent Philip Oltermann points out that at the very first Bundestag election in 1949 the Deutsche Rechtspartei (DRP – German Right Party), sometimes known as the German Conservative Party (DKP), won five seats.

This party suffered various splits, with some of its MPs joining the Socialist Reich Party (SRP) which was banned in 1952.

Some others then joined the Deutsche Reichspartei (German Reich Party, or German Empire Party, confusingly also abbreviated as DRP) which developed links with Sir Oswald Mosley and included Luftwaffe ace Hans-Ulrich Rudel among its members. This DRP never won Bundestag seats, though did win representation in the Rhineland-Palatinate Landtag.

The NPD of course never won a Bundestag seat, though again winning various Landtag seats, and polling a peak of 3.6% at the 1969 Bundestag election.

The Deutsche Partei (German Party, DP) was a more respectable version of nationalism and had Bundestag seats from 1949 to 1961: indeed the DP was a coalition partner with the conservative CDU and CSU until 1960.

In 1960 the DP merged with the GB/BHE (a party representing Germans expelled from the eastern territories) to form the All-German Party (GDP), but this new merged party failed to win Bundestag seats at the 1961 election, and quickly faded, with several of its leading activists co-founding the new NPD in 1964.

Schönhuber’s Republikaner (Republican) party, which had its big success at the 1989 European election with 6 MEPs, never entered the Bundestag: its best result was 2.1% in 1990. At the founding of the Republikaner in 1983 as a split from the Bavarian conservative CSU, they had two Bundestag MPs (who had been elected as CSU) but by the time of the next Bundestag election in 1987 these two had quit the party and Schönhuber decided the party was too weak to contest those elections.

Thirty years on, German politics has been transformed. Today’s front pages convey the liberal establishment’s horror.

Then at the start of this year the SPD (German equivalent of the Labour Party) started to take a lead in opinion polls after selecting former European Parliament president Martin Schulz as its candidate for Chancellor.

However once the campaign got under way many voters, especially in the more prosperous western areas of Germany, began to turn back to Merkel partly out of fear that the SPD would form a coalition government including the neo-Marxist Left Party (Die Linke) as well as the Greens. The Left Party includes former leaders of the Communist Party that ruled the former East Germany until the fall of the Berlin Wall in 1989.

Germany’s main nationalist party the NPD will be fielding candidates in most of the country both at constituency and list level. (The German election system is partly based on Westminster style constituencies but with a ‘top-up’ element based on party lists, to create a Parliament that represents the percentage votes achieved by each party, with a 5% threshold required to obtain any MPs.)

Ursula Haverbeck in discussion with her lawyer Wolfram Nahrath during court proceedings in November 2016

Recently the 88-year-old Ursula Haverbeck was given a two-year sentence for ‘Holocaust denial’ after questioning the increasingly discredited official version of history that dictates 6 million Jews were murdered, supposedly mainly in homicidal gas chambers during the Second World War.

German prosecutors and government representatives refuse to answer Frau Haverbeck’s questions as to how, where and on whose orders such supposed mass killings took place: instead of answering such questions they bring further criminal charges. However contrary to some reports Frau Haverbeck is not presently in a prison cell, as despite court verdicts and sentences there are still appeal processes going on.

Meanwhile the 81-year-old lawyer Horst Mahler remains imprisoned near Berlin on similar charges, having been handed back to German custody in June by the Hungarian government. Mahler had been released from a 12-year prison sentence on health grounds after becoming critically ill and having a leg amputated, but prosecutors ordered his return to prison earlier this year.

H&D‘s assistant editor Peter Rushton addressed a rally in Berlin on Saturday 19th August, calling for the release of official British documents reporting on the death of Rudolf Hess, thirty years ago this week.

More than 1,000 demonstrators marched in the Spandau district of Berlin, close to the site of the infamous prison where Hess was incarcerated until his death aged 93 in 1987. By then he had been in Allied prisons since 1941, when he flew to Scotland in an effort to negotiate peace between Britain and Germany.

The memorial stone at the spot where Rudolf Hess’s plane crash-landed in 1941. This stone was erected by British nationalists Tom Graham, Wallace Wears and Colin Jordan, but was later smashed by communists.

Two Foreign Office files containing the official investigation of Hess’s death by the Royal Military Police Special Investigation Branch – FCO 161/69 and FCO 161/70 – remain secret, under a regulation normally used for sensitive intelligence material.

Marchers this weekend came from many parts of Germany and included representatives of numerous parties and groups. The event was chaired by the NPD’s national organiser Sebastian Schmidtke and speakers included the NPD’s Dr Olaf Rose (a former member of the regional parliament of Saxony) as well as H&D‘s Peter Rushton and international guests from France and Finland.

German media admitted that this was the largest nationalist event in Berlin for many years. ‘Antifascists’ failed to prevent the march and failed to drown out the speakers.

‘Antifascist’ arson attacks damaged signalling equipment on railway lines near Berlin, which meant that hundreds of marchers were unable to reach the city. Around 250 comrades including NPD vice-president Thorsten Heise from Thuringia held a spontaneous demonstration in the Falkensee district, after the railway arson prevented them from reaching Spandau.

Due to the many oppressive laws in modern Germany, marchers and speakers at this weekend’s event were severely restricted in what they could say, or what symbols could be displayed.

However we were able to convey a clear message that murder can never be forgotten, and that justice demands the full disclosure of the true circumstances surrounding the incarceration and murder of Rudolf Hess.

This photograph of Hess was taken secretly in the grounds of Spandau Prison, where he died in August 1987

(This is the text of a speech delivered in Spandau, Berlin – with German translation – on Saturday 19th August 2017 by H&D‘s Peter Rushton.)

Spandau is the site of a shameful episode in my country’s history: the murder of Rudolf Hess, thirty years ago this week.

My country’s leaders ended Hess’s public life in 1941, beginning his 46 years of incarceration – first in Britain, then in Nuremberg, then here in Spandau.

Let us never forget that even at Nuremberg, Rudolf Hess was found not guilty of war crimes and crimes against humanity. He was convicted only of involvement in planning and preparing a so-called “war of aggression” – a retrospectively defined so-called “crime”.

I am not allowed to discuss the circumstances of Hess’s flight to Britain in 1941. Although the achievements of the Federal Republic are so evident around us every day, it seems that this Republic feels threatened by any discussion of such historical matters!

The memorial stone at the spot where Rudolf Hess’s plane crash-landed in 1941. This stone was erected by British nationalists Tom Graham, Wallace Wears and Colin Jordan, but was later smashed by communists.

As late as 1987, the Federal Republic had to be protected against the 93-year-old Rudolf Hess, and even 30 years after his death, Rudolf Hess is seen as a threat to the post-1945 order, including the Federal Republic.

Last month the UK National Archives released thousands of pages of files about Hess and Spandau. I visited the Archives in London and I have been reading those files.

In 1987 the Special Investigation Branch of the Royal Military Police stationed in Germany carried out an investigation of Hess’s death. Yet both versions of their report (interim and final) remain secret.

They are officially listed as “retained” by the Foreign Office, under a regulation which normally applies to sensitive intelligence material.

Wolf Rüdiger Hess with the coffin of his father Rudolf Hess

This follows the advice of a telegram from Bonn to the Foreign Office soon after Hess’s death, in which a British diplomat writes:“We agree that the autopsy report is not suitable for publication and that it would be preferable to avoid giving it to Wolf Rüdiger Hess. …We also agree that it is desirable to act quickly. This should help cut short speculation and allow media attention to move on to other things.”

There is no explanation of why aspects of the autopsy report and investigation were to be kept secret.

While the autopsy report is now public, the full reports investigating Hess’s death remain secret.

This photograph of Hess was taken secretly in the grounds of Spandau Prison, where he died in August 1987

Among the latest releases we can now see Foreign Office papers from the summer of 1989, drafting an official letter in reply to the late Ernst Zündel, who had asked Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher for the release of these secret files, but we are still waiting for the whole truth.

If the guardians of World Order truly wish to silence speculation about the murder of Rudolf Hess, these documents must be released – there can be no legitimate reason for their retention.

Those two vital reports are still secret: but what do we know from other files that are now public?

We know that in 1941 there was a plot to assassinate Hess, very soon after his arrival in Britain. Brief details are revealed in the diary of a senior MI5 officer (Guy Liddell) and in correspondence between the Foreign Office and MI6.

Alfgar Hesketh-Prichard, a central figure in an earlier murder plot against Hess, is seen here (second right) with members of an SOE team that targeted Reinhard Heydrich a year later.

We know that this assassination plot involved Poles based in Scotland; and an officer of the Special Operations Executive, Alfgar Hesketh-Prichard, who was an expert sniper.

This same officer Hesketh-Prichard (a year later) commanded the assassins of Reinhard Heydrich.

That operation is well known, yet most details of the 1941 plot to murder Rudolf Hess remain secret. What sort of ‘Poles’ planned this attempted murder; how and why did MI5 prevent it? What disputes took place within the British establishment?

It is illegal in the Federal Republic for me to speculate as to who might have been desperate to terminate Hess’s mission in 1941. We cannot suggest what these assassins might have feared about Hess’s mission.

The recently published documents show that the authorities’ fear of Rudolf Hess even extended to censoring Yuletide cards. A card sent from England by the political activist Colin Jordan was intercepted by the Spandau authorities at Yuletide 1983 and sent back to England to be investigated by our own ‘Verfassungsschutz’, the Special Branch.

Colin Jordan addresses a Trafalgar Square rally in 1962: a Yuletide card sent by Jordan to Hess in 1983 was censored by prison authorities

Many new documents in the archives are letters from Hess’s lawyer Dr Alfred Seidl, who fought a long and courageous campaign to oppose the entire basis of the Nuremberg charges against his client.

The recently released British documents give many details of Hess’s medical records, indicating for example that while he remained mentally alert even after suffering a stroke and partial blindness in 1978, he had many serious physical ailments, making the official account of his so-called suicide highly implausible.

Officially a succession of British politicians claimed that they wanted Hess to be released, and that his continued detention was due only to Soviet intransigence.

Then at the very moment when Soviet policy began to change, Hess conveniently (we are told) committed suicide. It was very easy to blame the Soviets: but London had a problem when this excuse was no longer valid.

Independent medical experts agree that the horizontal mark across Hess’s neck indicates that he did not commit suicide (as this would have left oblique rather than horizontal scarring).

Given that the British authorities themselves accept the existence of a previous murder plot against Hess; given the extraordinary circumstances of his so-called suicide; and given its suspiciously convenient timing – all authorities concerned must admit that these suspicions can only be dispelled by the full release of all relevant documents.

Yet they refuse to do so.

Of course my country bears the main responsibility in this matter, but the Federal Republic in 2011 behaved even worse than the occupying powers in 1987, who had allowed Hess’s body to be released to his family for burial at Wunsiedel.

In 2011 this decision was reversed and a much earlier barbaric policy was reinstated, going back to a 1947 agreement in the Stalin-era to cremate Rudolf Hess, scatter the ashes and destroy even the box in which the ashes had been stored.

In fact in 2011 the entire family grave was destroyed.

The graveyard at Wunsiedel, before and after the official destruction of the Hess family grave in 2011

Such is the Federal Republic in the 21st century: their fear of National-Socialism and their barbaric counter-measures have taken us back to the Stalin-era – and in some respects worse than the Stalin-era.

We will only escape the shadow of Stalinism when German and British governments dare to confront the full truth of our history.

German lawyer and political philosopher Horst Mahler, 81, has escaped the German state’s efforts to imprison him under their notorious ‘incitement’ law. He is now seeking political asylum in a safe country.

His reincarceration was due today, but yesterday Horst Mahler escaped from the Federal Republic.

Horst Mahler explains:

I owe an explanation as to why I refuse to comply with Mr Nötzel, the public prosecutor in Munich, who has summoned me back to prison under his regiment.I have pressed charges against Mr Nötzel at the same public prosecutor’s office where he is employed, for attempting to murder me in prison. Expecting my demise, the police had already prepared a ban on demonstrations for the city of Brandenburg, where the prison is located.On July 29, 2015, after five and a half years in prison, I had physically collapsed in my prison cell.This was after I had been given the contraindicated drug salicylate vaseline as a treatment for my open wound on the heel of my left diabetic foot.As a consequence of this treatment, I suffered blood-poisoning. The symptoms caused my referral to Brandenburg’s Asklepios Clinic, where I received medical care at the intensive care unit.The doctors diagnosed, I quote: “A terminal illness.”Regardless of this, the accused public prosecutor, who was in charge of my case, enforced my referral to the secluded unit for prisoners at the Brandenburg clinic.As a result of this referral, my condition deteriorated rapidly, so that my left leg, which was affected with erysipelas (bacterial infection of the skin), had to be amputated up to the knee.My life was saved only thanks to my wife’s vigorous efforts to obtain my referral to the intensive care unit at Asklepios clinic. Thanks to Gerard Menuhin’s mediation, she had succeeded in getting the Swiss weekly paper “Weltwoche” interested in my case.In a long article, they drew international attention to this scandal.I explained all this in my letter to the state prosecutor Munich II, dated February 9, 2017. Adding further scandalous details, I expressed my suspicion of attempted homicide.Considering the underlying, base motives, attempted murder must be taken into consideration!The responsible public prosecutor’s office, which is simultaneously the scene of the crime, has not acted upon my charges against the accused.Instead, they revoked my parole and summoned me back to prison by April 19, 2017 at the latest, without obtaining a medical opinion on whether or not I am fit to serve my prison sentence.As long as the judicial offers in charge have not been held accountable, and as long as they are involved in my case, I refuse to comply with their summons!As this use of force against me essentially represents a political persecution that has no legal basis, I am going to seek political asylum in a sovereign state that is willing to take me in.